We say we want to be nimble. A system that is nimble has rapid, quality feedback. The sooner you give feedback, the less time your team will waste pursuing the wrong answer.

The further the feedback is from the event, the more time it takes to fix it. Think of it like this. I am sure that a long time ago you wrote some code. What if I told you there was a bug in it I wanted you to fix? It would be very difficult for you to find and fix. That is an extreme example. Suppose it was only a year ago. Certainly you know of projects that lasted more than a year. Even after a year, it can be a real challenge to find and fix errors you created.

Now suppose it was yesterday. It would be fresh in your mind. It would be easy to find and fix. So you can see that the further the feedback is from the event, the more time it takes to fix it. Timely feedback makes your team more efficient by eliminating time wasted in pursuing the wrong approach as well as reducing the time spent finding and fixing errors.

By not providing timely feedback, we create a system that wastes effort and causes unnecessary delays.

Even more than that, distance in time changes the way the creator perceives the feedback. If you tell me right away that what I have done is not what you want, the feedback is about the product. I can correct it and we will both be happy.

If you wait, and I go on and do other work, perhaps a lot of other work, work that is based on that wrong start, I have wasted my time. Any good feelings I had about myself based on my progress are dashed. Suddenly the feedback is about me and not the product. I have done bad work. I am not good at this. I am stupid.

People do not want to feel stupid and for the most part they are not. The reason they feel that way is that we create a system that makes them feel that way. People so strongly do not want to feel stupid that they stop contributing rather than risking contributing something that will make them feel stupid.

Some of us think in terms of reward and punishment. What if we punish people for not contributing? Even if they are punished for not contributing, the punishment is likely better than feeling stupid. It allows them to take the moral high ground and say, "I know I am right, you just do not care and you are lashing out at me to compensate for your own shortcomings. If you cared, you would have been paying attention." Do you see how even undesirable behavior is rewarded?

By not providing timely feedback, we create a system that encourages people to not contribute.

I know you care. Show you care. Provide timely, quality feedback. Praise the product if it is praiseworthy. Suggest changes to the product if you want something different. Make it about the product and not the person. Help us be nimble and efficient. Create a system that encourages people to contribute.

The role of the forecaster in the real world is quite different from that of the mythical seer. Prediction is concerned with future certainty; forecasting looks at how hidden currents in the present signal possible changes in direction for companies, societies, or the world at large. Thus, the primary goal of forecasting is to identify the full range of possibilities, not a limited set of illusory certainties. Whether a specific forecast actually turns out to be accurate is only part of the picture — even a broken clock is right twice a day. Above all, the forecaster’s task is to map uncertainty, for in a world where our actions in the present influence the future, uncertainty is opportunity.

(Via Justin Fox.)

The illusion of knowledge is believing familiarity is the same as wisdom. You’ve probably felt it when trying to do something like fix a sink or explain to a child how taco shells are made. Just because you’ve become familiar with the operation and function of a thing doesn’t mean you truly understand how it works.

[We] suggest that people record important decisions—particularly at the end of a conversation when they decide who does what by when and how to follow-up. Why is this important? Memory is unsafe. Memory can be unreliable. Memory can diminish in the rush of other urgencies and deadlines. So write down the facts. What commitments were made? What decisions were made?

If something is going to be better, it is new, and if it’s new you are confronting problems and challenges you don’t have references for. To solve and address those requires a remarkable focus. There’s a sense of being inquisitive and optimistic, and you don’t see those in combination very often.

Plans are not needed in projects. A simpler and more usual method is to do projects twice or go on doing them till it is politically suitable to stop.

You know those gorgeous old brownstones in New York City? With the elaborate carvings, gargoyles, and beautiful iron fences? Well, if you dig up the old architectural plans, the architect would often just write something like “beautiful fretwork” on the drawing, and leave it up to the artisan, the old craftsman from Italy to come up with something, fully expecting that it will be beautiful.

That’s not design. That’s decoration. What we, in the… industry, collectively refer to as Lipstick on a Chicken. If you have been thinking that there is anything whatsoever in design that requires artistic skill, well, banish the thought. Immediately, swiftly, and promptly. Art can enhance design but the design itself is strictly an engineering problem…

Design, for my purposes, is about making tradeoffs.

(Via marco.org. (Via @mrgan.))

If your organization is both pessimistic and operationally focused, then every new idea is a threat. It represents more work, something that could go wrong, a chance for disaster. People work to protect against the downside, to insulate against the market, to be sure that they won't get blamed for anything that challenges the system. In organizations like this, a new idea has to be proven to be better than the current status quo in all situations before it gets launched.

If you believe that righteous effort leads to the shame of personal failure, you'll seek to avoid righteous effort.

Successful people analytically figure out what didn't work and redefine what their best work will be in the future. And then they get back to work.

“Welcome to your new careers. If you can’t deal with this sort of change on a regular basis… there’s the door. Go get a refund and go drive a beer truck.” It was a great opportunity for me to review all that had been going on, what happened, and what it means for them.

The thrust was technology changes and you either embrace change or get out of the way. Change is a fact of life in our business and, as a teacher, it is a fact of life for me.

(Via The Shape of Everything)

Something magical has just occurred.

It’s a really simple idea.

Which is:  The means of production, which both Karl Marx and Adam Smith talked about, has shifted.

Karl Marx and Adam Smith both talked about the same device: a pin making machine.

Before the pin making machine, a skilled pin maker could make ten pins a day. After the pin making machine, four guys off the streets with five minutes of training could make 10,000 pins a day.

Well, Karl Marx looked at this and said, “We are in big trouble. Workers of the world unite. We’re going to be replaced.” And Adam Smith looked at this and said, “Quick. Go buy a pin making machine.” And they were both right.

What it led to was this: It led to the fact that the person who owns the means of production gets to keep the money.

What has happened is what every one of you own, what every one of your students owns, is a laptop with an Ethernet port or a WiFi card. And that connects them to the entire world. And this is the connection economy. So that device that they have in their hand has world class architectural tools and world class engineering tools and world class marketing tools all built into it all for free. Which means that everyone at that level now owns the means of production.

The means of production is now no longer the coal mine, it’s no longer the Ford factory in Dearborn, it is that device. And so, we are going to shift from farmers to factory workers to something I call artists.

Email is our personal to-do list that anybody adds to — whether they know us or not.

(Via Cole Camplese.)

…being yourself, as hard as you can, is the way to have important and lasting impact on our world… It might be in the context of technology, or the arts, or sports, or government, or social justice — or even in the context of your family and close friends.

It almost doesn’t matter. The thing that matters most is to figure out what’s important to you, what’s core to you, and do that. Be that. And do it as well as you possibly can, every single day.

(Via Daring Fireball.)

There’s a custom in modern society that’s often called “respect for the dead.” It has nothing whatsoever to do with the dead. The dead don’t care what you say about them. It’s about the living who cared about the dead, and they do. It’s because they care that mourning is such a difficult process. Painful. Sad. It’s not a time when you want reminders of the flaws of the person whose absence you are trying to come to terms with.

No human with a shred of empathy or decency chooses to publicly criticize the recently departed, famous or otherwise, regardless of how they felt about them. Doing so is an act of cruelty. It’s hurtful. Little. It’s kicking people hard when they are already as low as they can be.

For those, like me, who care, but didn’t know Steve Jobs personally, people like this are an annoyance. They’re just another crass, classless obnoxious Internet loudmouth that we have to make an effort to ignore.